JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is against the order as contained in Annexure-1 whereby and where under the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division-I, Ganjam, Berhampur has issued a letter on 16.3.1999 notifying therein that the DLR workers working in sub-division and section of the Division are no more required for engagement after 10.6.1999, as no examination has been conducted for their engagement and the engagement has also not been made as per the provision of Appendix-XXXIII Note-V of Orissa P.W.D. Code Vol-II for Graduate, Diploma and Engineers and the order passed by the Tribunal on 18.5.1999 in O.A. No.930 of 1999 whereby and where under the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the disengagement of the applicant. 2. The fact of the case is that the petitioners were working under the opposite parties on DLR basis since 1991. The authorities have come out with a letter as contained in letter No.3692 dtd.16.3.1999 whereby and where under they have been given three months notice for disengagement and as such being aggrieved with the same they have approached before the Tribunal and ultimately the Tribunal has passed an order refusing to pass interim order staying the order of disengagement. The petitioners being aggrieved with the decision of the authorities and the order passed by the Tribunal are before this Court by way of this writ petition. 3. The contention raised by the petitioners is that they are working since 1991 and as such the authorities are entitled to allow them to continue them in service since the service is of perennial in nature, but without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter the authorities have come out with a letter on 16.3.1999 giving three months notice to them for their disengagement which is not proper, hence they have approached before the Tribunal on the basis of an order passed by the Tribunal in another original application being O.A. No.807 of 1999 in which the interim order has been passed on 17.5.1999 to the effect that the services of the applicants of those original applications shall not be terminated without leave of the Tribunal, but the Tribunal in the case of the petitioners have refused to pass the same interim order, hence this writ petition. 4. 4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party – State has vehemently opposed the submission and the ground taken by the petitioners in the writ petition by submitting that the petitioners have got no right to remain in service since they are D.L.R. employees and it is settled that the D.L.R. employees are supposed to being engaged in service so long as the work is there and if the work is not there they have got no right to remain in service. It has further been submitted that the petitioners being the D.L.R. employees are not appointed by following the principle laid down under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and as such the authorities have come out with a decision on the basis of the P.W.D. Code by notifying that the D.L.R. workers engaged after the cutoff date will be disengaged since they have been selected without due procedure of law. Hence in view thereof the Tribunal has rightly passed the order which needs no interference by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The fact which is admitted in this case is that the petitioners had been engaged under D.L.R. capacity sometimes in the year 1991 and thereafter they have been allowed to continue for some times, but the Executive Engineer of the concerned Division has come out with a decision on 16.3.1999, on the basis of the provision of P.W.D. Code which requires that the appointment is to be made after asking the candidates to go for the recruitment test, since these petitioners had been engaged without following the due procedure, hence the decision has been taken to disengage them from service and for that purpose three months notice had been given. The petitioners had challenged the decision of the concerned authority before the Tribunal with a prayer to get an interim relief staying the decision of disengagement of the authorities on the basis of an order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.807 of 1999 which has been disallowed by the Tribunal on the ground of decision of the Finance Department by which a resolution has been issued fixing a cutoff date i.e. 12.04.1993 and whoever been engaged after 12.04.1993 should be disengaged, the Tribunal taking into consideration the decision of the Finance Department has refused to pass interim order and also directed the authorities that no other D.L.R./N.M.R./work charged employee should be engaged after 31.5.1999 to handle the work which had been entrusted to the applicants without obtaining leave of the Tribunal. This Court, in course of argument, has put a specific question upon the learned counsel representing the petitioners that what has happed finally in O.A. No.930 of 1999. Learned counsel representing the petitioners has submitted that he has got no instruction. Be that as it may, after the proposition having been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 VOL-IV SCC 1, there cannot be any direction by the Court of Law to regularize the services of the daily rated employee, subject to exception as has been laid down at paragraph 53 of the said judgment. We found from the pleadings that the petitioners have not made out a case that they are coming under the parameter of the ratio propounded at paragraph 53 of the case of Umadevi-3 and as such no positive direction can be passed in favour of the petitioners. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter we are not inclined to pass positive direction in favour of the petitioner. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed